What bothers me most about Adobe's decision is that they are valuing their shareholders more than actual users. It's a straight up move to appeal to investors, while holding their middle finger up to actual users(many long time). I'm not actually against a usage structure(it is after all how many of us make our money) but the amount they are trying to charge is ridiculous. Most people I know(including many retouchers) would upgrade every other version unless there's a reason to upgrade right away, or adobe forced us to(see CS6). That's taking a $200 cost every 3 years and multiplying it by 4 to $720. I the costs of cc were more in line with where they should be, I'd sign up right away. As it is, I'm going to sit out and hope that adobe blinks.

If I am forced to go down the CC route I would at least like to be able to download the software from US servers in dollars with the option to pay 12 months in advance at a slightly reduced rate - Adobe UK cannot offer this, just enquired.

As far as the economics of the CC for Adobe, actually, it's been the success of the whole subscription model (and the technical difficulty in doing dual application versioning for subscription & perpetual licenses) that have driven Adobe toward doing this. Yes, it will alienate some users who reject the whole "cloud" thingie...which I understand (assuming the rejection is made based on real facts and not FUD).

As a book author, my life just way more complicated because I can't write for a fixed target with a known lifecycle...now it's a moving target that will be tough to do for paper based publishing (easier and perhaps better done with ebooks).

I'm also kinda melancholy about the whole change to the old model...as a long term alpha/beta tester, I always looked forward to a new dev cycle and seeing what the engineers came up with (and hammered on them to fix stuff). But this new model allows a freedom and flexibility that will, I think, lead to more rapid advances with new features on a more regular basis. But I'll miss the old way...

Jeff,

It is puzzling why you would defend Adobe's decision. I understand the emotional attachment you share with Adobe as a corporation, but come on, man !

. Photographers are usually not working in corporation: think wedding photographers, portrait photographers, landscape photographers, even small studio photographers. Many also freelance. . Adobe's new approach is more geared toward Fortune-500 companies... Yes, many use photoshop or Creative Suite for different purposes (graphic design, ads, ...). Your own customer base is mostly the small business or freelance photographers, or hobbyists.

Why you would turn against your own customer base, to protect Adobe's misguided decision, is simply puzzling.

Listen, as a freelance photographer, and former owner of a landscape photography business, I would not be able to justify the new model in my business today or in the past. Here are a couple of reasons:1. Cost -- the new model is NOT the same as the old one. Do the math beyond the first introductory year, and check it for yourself.2. Upgrades -- I learn a new feature or new layout on my timeframe, not someone else. If Adobe decides to push yet another camera raw interface, I don't feel I have to interrupt my project to learn it. We don't have that luxury in the real world3. I happen to be away on long trips without internet for more than 30 days... 4. Sony's network was down for more than 30 days last year... all gamers and owners of PS3 remember these days. Can't use Netflix on your PS3 because Sony's servers were down. Imagine this happening to Adobe's server (being hacked)... and tell me how millions of user would feel if their 30-day ping happen during this period5. Companies don't live forever.. do you remember Pan-Am ? One day, Adobe will decide they want to exit Photoshop. With a purchase model, we could still use the software for few more years. With rental, we will have 30 days to convert all of our library and move on6. Ligthtroom ... well, Adobe stated last year that the rental model for creative suite is an option, and that we are not forced into it. They lied. Clearly. It is going to take a lot to convince me that they wouldn't do the same with Lightroom. Why would I keep investing time in cataloguing my files with Ligthroom ? Done.

Now if your business is teaching / writing about competing software tools, I would understand your excitement and support for this decision by Adobe. Knowing that a major source of YOUR INCOME it at risk based on a decision by Adobe, you should be the first in line complaining about this approach.

Clearly, it seems that Adobe is not listening to its customer base. Nor to its network of power users (you). Nor to the secondary market (ecosystem) that made Photoshop so successful (books, lessons, seminars, plug-ins development, sales of tools...)

It used to be exciting to learn about new releases and new features. Moving forward: Yawn... it will be pushed down our throats without any ceremony.

Clearly, it seems that Adobe is not listening to its customer base. Nor to its network of power users (you). Nor to the secondary market (ecosystem) that made Photoshop so successful (books, lessons, seminars, plug-ins development, sales of tools...)

I think you'll find Adobe is listening to it's profitable user base and that's not us.

"We believe that we're now collectively hitting a tipping point where the web is now ready for a generation of tools and services that help build the future of HTML5, CSS, and JavaScript web"

That's no mention of the graphics industry there. This all about Adobe shifting to be the biggest player in eCommerce and that's the BIG market. Photoshop is just a minor utility for making web graphics to them now.

I have a very good understanding of this business model. It works for corporations, mostly doesn't for isolated users.

I will personally not purchase software on a rental basis and a majority of photographers will take the same decision.

This Adobe decision is simply unacceptable.

I am really pissed because it means I will have to spend tens of hours learning how to use an alternative that will probably not be as good. I am very disappointed that the money I invested in Adobe product over the years resulted in so little interest by Adobe decision makers into my needs as a customer.

This, combined with the decision of Apple to speed up the rate of upgrade of new OS releases makes the Abobe/Apple combination a no go for photography moving forward. The odds that a valid alternative for PS show up quickly is much higher in the Windows world.

I am incredibly pissssssed. And I am weighting my words here.

Cheers,Bernard

WOW - glad you are weighing them Bernard - those sure are "heavy words". Never knew till now we could select such large fonts on this forum - all the better to chew'em out with, eh? :-)

1. Is that your professional legal opinion? Anti-trust laws exist to protect against the creation of a monopoly and the abuse thereof. It could be argued Adobe has a monopoly on certain technologies. It could further be argued that Adobe by removing the most common method of purchase and ownership, is abusing their position in the marketplace. It could be argued their "cloud" method of activation and requiring an internet connection of sufficient quality alienates a good portion of the world (including many parts of our own country who live in rural areas without internet) without sufficient internet, and even if they allowed phone validation they'd be at a professional, creative, and financial disadvantage in obtaining fair access to the technology they're paying for.. but not receiving. Geez dude, I could write argument after argument from now till the upcoming court date. If I can do it don't you think there are Adobe haters and others out there already planning the same?

And let's keep in mind that anti-trust suits can be more/less successful based on content depending on which country's laws are being applied. Different countries not only have different requirements, but also different heights for the bar to validate the requirements.e Adobe is an international product. Losing such a case in the EU, Asia, or other large marketplace might or might not give them sufficient reason to standardize/revise their policies.

2. FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Fun? No sir. Reasonable and prudent as a consumer who has observed tech companies take advantage of the public time and again? Yes, it is. Lecturing me on my motivations which you know nothing about: it might be fun for you but it's not doing anyone any favours.

Reality? Seriously? The head in the sand approach doesn't benefit anyone. Adobe isn't innocent of questionable business practices. They've committed, and continue to commit, some surprisingly serious practices which leads me to believe they're not at all past finding a way to shut off activations at some point. Or that the language of our current licenses couldn't already be twisted/argued to this end. And we won't know until they decide to do it and we hear their defence in the courtrooms.

The truth is, money is the most common motivator for poor business behaviour. Many argue that without this motivation we wouldn't have wars. A corporation exists only to enrich their shareholders and when push comes to shove there are very few if any limits they'll stoop to. Only our laws and a vigilant (and I dare say skeptical) public who isn't afraid to ask questions keeps them in check. Perhaps it's more damaging when fanboys of certain corporations try to suppress such questioning.

Steve - Adobe has patents on their intellectual property. Patents are, in an important sense, intentionally created "legal monopolies" for reasons I needn't bore you with - you likely know. They cannot be charged for anti-trust violations by holding their legal monopoly rights. The way in which they choose to market their intellectual property is a matter of free choice. They can rent it, or they can sell perpetual licenses to it, or they can do both. There are no laws against this. You would be very hard-put to prove in a court of law why renting software frustrates the benefits to be achieved from competition as opposed to selling perpetual licenses to it. If any one could win that case, perhaps outfits such as Lynda.com would have to change their business model, because they rent access to tutorials rather than selling you copies of the product for your perpetual reference. You can be well-assured that Adobe has a whole legal department doing nothing else but advising senior management on how to keep out of trouble. You would have great difficulty proving in a court of law that the one business model or the other constitutes the kind of abuse of a dominant market position that would be unambiguous enough to constitute an anti-trust violation. If anything, this new business model invites the development of competition and a challenge to revenue on a scale they haven't seen to date. This is business risk that I know for a fact they clearly understand.

The one potential vulnerability they MAY - but not likely - have is through the consequences of stopping to pay the rent. One loses access to software on which one depended for creating and amending images. It would prevent people from reverting to those photographs and revising them if they contained code that their last installed perpetual license version no longer recognized. But even that, as immoral as it would be, may not be a legally determinate abuse of a monopoly position, unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of a court that they ever made commitments to the perpetual usability of their software, and that is something no software vendor in his or her right mind would ever do, because it would frustrate the benefits of technological change by creating the need for an infinite change of backward compatibility that no-one guarantees - no-one.

I can't justify $50/month for access to software I don't use. I personally have no issue with the business model, but the price point isn't worth it (for me).

And that's the bottom line, what the cost proposition is worth to you. IF Adobe finds you are the majority, they could lower the price. Or like magazine subscriptions I get, tell you that if you pay for 3 years, the fee drops to $25 a month etc, etc.

IF you don't like what Adobe has done, don't support it. Maybe they will get the message. Or maybe you'll get a big job that makes it worthwhile. In the end, it's a product with a price you either think is fair and will pay for or you don't and the company doesn't get the sale.

Anyone have Sirius radio? Came with my car. First 6 months were free. I didn't renew, they keep calling and offering me ridiculous prices for a year that is far lower than the advertised price. They are either hurting or the knew from day one they'd ask a high fee then lowball it down if you refuse. Could that happen with Adobe?

With apologies, and desiring no controversy, and without the subscription contract to review, there are at least 3 vulnerabilities in Adobe's Cloud. The Microsoft Explorer worldwide litigation is an instructive example of the power of anti-trust regulation and statutory prohibitions.

#1. Bundling/Tying

#2 Vertical Integration

#3. Restricting access to Add on/Accessory providers.

Assuming that Adobe legally vetted its plan, just as MS did with Explorer, we'll have to wait for full disclosure of the terms. At this point, the mere announcement seems destructive of middle men like B & H or even college book stores that inventory Adobe software.

There's no need for any blow torching here. It's going to be academically interesting to see how they legally navigate the the treacherous forests of litigation firms that see a hapless fat cow like Adobe capable of paying treble damages plus millions in plaintiff's attorney fees embarking on such a risky trek.

Thanks for the indulgenceKen Richmond

Unfortunately, I believe the history of anti-trust indicates that it is much less powerful than we would like to believe, companies can drive trucks through it before it comes back to bite them, and biting them costs a fortune in well-organized litigation. The three potential sources of violation you mention would need to survive various hurdles in terms of validating their impact on reducing competition to a point that violates the law. I wouldn't be too hopeful of seeing this happen. I think it will be more likely the market place that will determine the fate of this business model.

It may be, but there may be other motivations for it. They are well aware of the financial risks they are taking introducing this model. There is a risk that it could well impair their cash flow for quite some time. There's no question that as of now it is the core of their business strategy going forward and they are making a long-term bet that it will eventually succeed. Time will tell. If anything, they will need to work all the more assiduously to keep it feature-rich so that existing users will hang-in and new ones will buy-in.

Unfortunately, I believe the history of anti-trust indicates that it is much less powerful than we would like to believe, companies can drive trucks through it before it comes back to bite them, and biting them costs a fortune in well-organized litigation. The three potential sources of violation you mention would need to survive various hurdles in terms of validating their impact on reducing competition to a point that violates the law. I wouldn't be too hopeful of seeing this happen. I think it will be more likely the market place that will determine the fate of this business model.

Adobe doesn't have nearly the deep pockets that Microsoft and Google have and both them were subject to pretty significant litigation which they had to settle. I suspect that if there is any anti-trust, it will take place in Europe which is far more friendly to such legal action compared to the US. Adobe has a decent cash flow but at present is probably overvalued by about 20%. The move to the CC is one way to strengthen cash flow and while we may not like it, the bottom line is the company has a responsibility to its shareholders above all

In the end the legal anti-trust inquiry is whether conduct is best rationalized as a legitimate business objective or as an anti-competitive maneuver. Paradigm changes of this magnitude are always vulnerable and have to be examined in the context of past practices. Microsoft attempted to justify Explorer as an evolutionary development that improved the efficiency and maintenance of its operating system. It had the copyrights you allude to and yet, after strenuous decade long litigation, had to release large segments to internet developers. Henry Ford overcame all of the automobile patent protections. Like it or not, there are no legal absolutes any more.

Anti-trust law has become highly fluid and does indeed take account of market impact, especially in the EU. Removing retailers from its distribution scheme is not, in and of itself, non-competitive; that is until an internal e-mail message pops up and declares that by having the "Cloud", Adobe can eliminate or co-opt third party competitors.

It may be, but there may be other motivations for it. They are well aware of the financial risks they are taking introducing this model. There is a risk that it could well impair their cash flow for quite some time. There's no question that as of now it is the core of their business strategy going forward and they are making a long-term bet that it will eventually succeed. Time will tell. If anything, they will need to work all the more assiduously to keep it feature-rich so that existing users will hang-in and new ones will buy-in.

Mark, thanks for fleshing out my summarized statement. i totally agree with what you say....and, I think, Adobe has the right to any actions which will improve their worth.

I am less concerned about the pricing....except that if I go the CC route, there is no easy exit. As I and many other have said, stopping the subscription ends the ability to rework any of the images that used the software....and, probably, creates a drastic, quick forced change to workflow.

It is interesting that Mr. Schewe makes a big FUD case on losing the ability to process proprietary RAW in the future (promoting Adobe's DNG strategy), but does not see how Adobe's subscription strategy will subject us to a similar risk to our processed images.

This has made me wonder how much I need PS now. Most of my time is spent in LR, and over the years my time spent round-tripping to PS has got less and less, to the point where I think with LR5 for Lens Corrections, PSE11 would cover my need for work with the text tool, occasional HDR stuff and Photomerge with Content-Aware Fill to mend the gaps. PSE11 also seems to run Actions, inc. some imported from PS. So for difficult soft-proofing maybe I'd still be able to use Michael's Mid-Tone and Thomas Knoll's Local Area Contrast actions.

That would leave really just PhotoKit Sharpeners as a PS-essential tool, for me. Maybe PixelGenius could get some return for making PKS available for PSE? Jeff??

I can't see CC as a viable model for the PSE market, really, unless seriously low-priced. So maybe the future is Lightroom plus Elements...

The big 'BUT' is that Adobe can inactivate the software if you decide at some future time to stop your subscription. Just to clarify.

Could they have done the same in terms of not activating a non cloud version? I may be wrong but I think Photoshop makes a call about activation on a regular bases, so I assume that IF adobe wanted to inactivate that serial number, they could have done this already.

Yes. The cloud part is for uploading files and syncing if you so desire and for getting the software onto your machine. After you install it, it's physically there just like your current version.

Thank you for the clarity. I'm assuming then that I should be able to work locally, off line for extended periods of time as long as I'm paid up.

Must say, I don't like the idea much, though. Has anything been said about Lightroom going cloud only?

Perhaps this will provide a new space in the market for smaller companies to capture significant market share with similar products. I've been meaning to test others available & now have impetus to do so.

It also now makes me rethink the wisdom of my "convert to DNG on import" as a default.